>Since when is relativism a girl thing? I know plenty of non-andros who>would assent to a simple statement like "If p then q; if not p then not>q."
<snip>>The idea that there>are "multiple truths" is such a postmodern Western bunch of garbage; why>bother using the word "truth" in such an absurd way. Of course there are>things that people believe to be true that can be demonstrated to others>in such a way that, given certain parameters, they will also agree to be>true. There are other things which people believe to be true that cannot>be demonstrated. But an inability to demonstrate what one believes to be>true does NOT mean that this is a "subjective" (i.e. "true for me">whateverthehellthatmeans) "truth". There is no problem disagreeing about>who is correct, but if the notion of "correctness" is thrown out the>window then you do not have "multiple truths" you have no truth at all.

Let's try to avoid inflamatory tones on both sides. I agree with the main
point Howell makes, but not the way he makes it. Simply, the problem with
the extremes of relativism is that it begs the question, "relative to
what?"